Has ANYBODY considered the possibility that the pre-NH polls were biased or flawed?

[MoonRiver]

To me it seems ridiculous that a near tear moment on Hillary Clinton's part could have swayed the voters by 10 to 15 percentage points.

How about analyzing the methodology of these corporate polls. Maybe their creators have an agenda???

[Captain Hilts]

1. No, but they DID have a large % of undecided voters. Hell, I'm not 'decided'. nt

[rudy23]

2. Absolutely. But this "you can never trust the polls" argument is dangerous for us, too

The next 18 point lead that evaporates overnight, they can blame on the pollsters, too!

[MoonRiver]

3. I'm not saying we can NEVER trust them.

But in this case something seems particularly fishy.

[gaspee]

4. If I lived in NH

I would have cast my vote for Clinton even though I have been and will continue to be an Edwards supporter. I am so ef'ing pissed off at what the MSM and also the Obama supporters on DU have been saying about her, smearing her and giving her the old double standard to live up to.

I would have cast a vote for her out of pure spite yesterday.

And no, I'm not proud of that but I would have figured, what the hell is my one vote going to do but make me feel better?

Maybe there were a lot of pissed off women in NH yesterday.

[MoonRiver]

8. I'm with you.

So maybe it was a real literally last minute sea change among the electorate?

[jbnow]

5. Those polls fit raw data of exit polls per Hardball

Matthews said he was shown the raw data at 5:30pm and it showed a substantial lead for Obama like the pre-election polls.

[ccpup]

6. oh geez

for the millionth time, the women who were key to Obama's success in Iowa strongly tilted toward Hillary in NH. The margin by which the men voted for Obama was not as large as they had thought it would be and the Under 30 crowd -- those mainly responsible for the gossamer surge Obama enjoyed in the NH Polls after Iowa -- didn't vote in as large of numbers as they had first anticipated.

Also, those supporting Hillary were much more committed (percentage-wise) than those supporting Obama and a lot less likely to change their minds. Out of those Undecideds who WEREN'T sure how they would vote, many more trended toward Hillary than did Obama.

Historically, the winner of Iowa rarely, rarely wins NH (which has a 75% chance of choosing who the Nominee will be, btw).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Hey, it could have been the sympathy vote AND the Al Qaeda card.

AND the MLK thing.

But seriously, my guess is the pre-NH polls were flawed due to non-response bias.

People who were going to vote for Clinton were less likely to tell pollsters. Too ashamed.

[TwilightZone]

9. No, I think that they were just slow to react.

His questionable reliability aside, Zogby had some interesting comments about the polls. He said that his poll indicated that Obama's lead was down to 2% the day before the primary, but because his poll is a three-day average, the momentum wasn't obvious.

Why he didn't bother to mention this at the time is anyone's guess.

More stuff from Zogby on the NH polls: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4011969

[tekisui]

10. Things were just to dynamic.

The pollsters couldn't keep up. The polls moved a lot right before Iowa and right after. Obama had a big quick bump, but I think things swung back to Clinton just as quickly.

The media messed up Obama chance for this to be called a positive outcome. If he'd not been so hyped up, and considered a lock, we'd all be blown away that he surpassed Clinton in Iowa and then finished 2-3 points behind in NH. He got the same number of Delegates as her in NH.

The pre-Primary hoopla stole Obama's thunder by over-estimating.

[aquart]

11. The near-tear didn't. The reaction to it, DID.

It was disgusting. The entire jubilation after Iowa was revolting. And the attempt to sell Obama as the Messiah of the Young who will not be denied? WTF do they come off?

Or, since there are now attempts to make this generational rather than black/white or male/female, maybe the boomers sent a big UP YOURS to the millennials.

[tandem5]

14. I think your subject line succinctly explains it nt

[tandem5]

12. its all in how the pollsters come up with the final numbers...

You look at the raw numbers behind these polls and things don't look all that strange, but the final numbers that they present are percentages of subcategories that they deem to represent "likely voters." I don't know if its just me, but it seems that "registered voter" polls are not that common anymore and yet they prove more accurate. "Likely voter" methodology is an educated guess that can be influenced by perceived trends and, well, we all know the media has been pushing one doozy of a trend.

[MoonRiver]

13. Yes, and that is one possible answer.

It could in part be biased sampling and unreliable correlation.

[elocs]

15. I heard tonight that the polling stopped on Sunday

and that there was movement in the final 24-48 hours that was not accounted for in the polls.

[RC]

16. Has anybody considered checking out he Diebold machines used?

How can they be considered reliable when there is no way to check them? How do they relate to any pre or post polls? All I hear are excuses and how the polls need to be weighted.

[bobnj2008]

17. Clinton "played" pollsters, media and Obama's ego to win

A few thoughts about New Hampshire. If you actually track most of the polls from September on, one thing seems obvious: If Obama closed to within less than 3 points of Clinton to earn a close second, the news story today - and the topic all the talking heads would be celebrating - is that the race had really tightened and Obama was coming on strong.

Remember, depending upon the poll Obama was often behind (prior to Iowa) by almost 20 points. Suddenly, the Iowa caucus monster (not a traditional election with secret ballot) gave Obama a victory of sorts that both he and, especially, the media blew completely out of proportion. For six days all we heard was that suddenly Hillary was basically dead and Obama was on a fast track.

Once everyone's plane landed in New Hampshire the next five days were spent by Clinton, Obama, and Edwards selling themselves as the legitimate "change agent" while the media pumped up the stories about Hillary's imminent demise. Poor Richardson just wanted to be in the photo-op and knew it was basically over except for positioning himself for another cabinet post.

Tuesday evening, as I watched Terry McAuliffe celebrating Hillary's victory, I realized that Team Clinton had pulled a slick one. The entire strategy was to take six months of being ahead in the polls and replace it with the notion the it was Obama who was the odds on favorite in NH. By Tuesday we lived in the make-believe world that anything less than a 10 point Obama victory was tantamount to an Obama failure and a major Clinton accomplishment.

I should note that at least two out of the numerous polls taken in New Hampshire had the race withing three points which is well within the margin of error. Those polls were not as "spin worthy" to get the publicity of the polls showing Obama ahead by 8, 9 10 points. The polls showing the bigger Obama lead got the play.

When you consider that characters and powerful Democratic insiders like Mark Penn, McAuliffe himself, Anne Lewis and political hit-man Howard Wolfson are Hillary's key players, the concept of Hillary as a real agent of change is clearly a joke.

Monday's tear jerking performance may not have been scripted. Perhaps Hillary deserves credit for seizing the opportunity and welling up at just the right moment. Or perhaps she truly was jolted by the fact that some Democrats just didn't want Hillary, even in New Hampshire. Whatever the reason, it along with what seemed like good dose of "piling on" by the media (and possible encouraged by strategically placed from within Team Clinton such as "Campaign shakeup imminent; Penn will get fired)

Monday evening MSNBC.com posted an on-line video interview between Brian Williams and Obama that lasted over twenty minutes. It was delightful viewing, particularly for those supporting the Illinois Senator. It also revealed that Obama appeared to buy into the media hype that his recent polling surge and large crowds signaled something special was happening that bode well for his candidacy. He should have been very skeptical. It appeared he wasn't.

Even without the surprise victory, Hillary was poised to spin any loss under five or six points as a great comeback. She got lucky and actually won. But, the reality is that it was Obama who closed from a double digit deficit in the polls to less than 3 points on Tuesday.

Organization Democrats turned out in larger numbers than "independents" who lean Democrat. Traditional "party regulars" don't favor "change" candidates like Obama. The dark cloud on the horizon for Obama is that unless he can increase turn-out from Democrats committed to real change, he'll lose in those primaries where Independents are not allowed to vote.